MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1161/circulationaha.120.050244

Медицинская библиотека · Circulation · 2020

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Aytekin Alp, Ndrepepa Gjin, Neumann Franz-Josef, Menichelli Maurizio, Mayer Katharina, Wöhrle Jochen, Bernlochner Isabell, Lahu Shqipdona, Richardt Gert, Witzenbichler Bernhard, Sibbing Dirk, Cassese Salvatore, Angiolillo Dominick J, Valina Christian, Kufner Sebastian, Liebetrau Christoph, Hamm Christian W, Xhepa Erion, Hapfelmeier Alexander, Sager Hendrik B, Wustrow Isabel, Joner Michael, Trenk Dietmar, Fusaro Massimiliano, Laugwitz Karl-Ludwig, Schunkert Heribert, Schüpke Stefanie, Kastrati Adnan

Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

Data on the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention are limited. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in a head-to-head comparison in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS

In this prespecified subgroup analysis, we included 1653 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction randomized to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel in the setting of the ISAR REACT-5 trial (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5). The primary end point was the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year after randomization. The secondary end point was the incidence of bleeding defined as BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 3 to 5 bleeding at 1 year after randomization.

RESULTS

The primary end point occurred in 83 patients (10.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 64 patients (7.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.95-1.82]; P=0.10). One-year incidence of all-cause death (4.9% versus 4.7%; P=0.83), stroke (1.3% versus 1.0%; P=0.46), and definite stent thrombosis (1.8% versus 1.0%; P=0.15) did not differ significantly in patients assigned to ticagrelor or prasugrel. One-year incidence of myocardial infarction (5.3% versus 2.8%; hazard ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.18-3.23]; P=0.010) was higher with ticagrelor than with prasugrel. BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 46 patients (6.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 39 patients (5.1%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.80-1.87]; P=0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, there was no significant difference in the primary end point between prasugrel and ticagrelor. Ticagrelor was associated with a significant increase in the risk for recurrent myocardial infarction. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Для цитирования: Aytekin Alp, Ndrepepa Gjin, Neumann Franz-Josef, Menichelli Maurizio, Mayer Katharina, Wöhrle Jochen, Bernlochner Isabell, Lahu Shqipdona, Richardt Gert, Witzenbichler Bernhard, Sibbing Dirk, Cassese Salvatore, Angiolillo Dominick J, Valina Christian, Kufner Sebastian, Liebetrau Christoph, Hamm Christian W, Xhepa Erion, Hapfelmeier Alexander, Sager Hendrik B, Wustrow Isabel, Joner Michael, Trenk Dietmar, Fusaro Massimiliano, Laugwitz Karl-Ludwig, Schunkert Heribert, Schüpke Stefanie, Kastrati Adnan. Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.. Circulation. 2020. DOI: 10.1161/circulationaha.120.050244.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.